3 ms·

The problem is, how many jobs can you name that couldn't be used to discriminate against a protected class? I think the previous commenter's point is correct.

jakelazaroff 5y ago
This is a First Amendment case, which means it’s specifically about jobs that count as “speech”. It’s very unambiguously illegal for a plumber or an accountant to have a “no gay clients” policy. That said — even within this case, that argument falls flat. The crux of the defense is “it’s not that I wouldn’t take on gay clients, I just won't make a wedding website for them.” Cool, so just don’t make wedding websites. There are plenty of other kinds of websites people will pay you to make. Leave the wedding sites to designers who won’t discriminate against gay people.
- Xeoncross 5y ago
  No, it doesn't work that way. No mater what kind of website (forum, web app, social network, wedding, etc..) she probably doesn't want to make a certain type of content. It is the same for any person. There is a topic for each of us that we want no part of 'supporting' even if we have no problem serving people who do support it. Making a website collecting donations for Trump. Making a website supporting Israel. Making a website for a pride parade. Making a website supporting/condemning Hong Kong/BLM/OWS movements. Doesn't mater what you put for X, everyone has limits on what they are comfortable supporting. That is a separate issue from who you provide service to.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dahfizz 5y ago
  I think the legal system ought to prioritize principles over practicality. We could replace the first amendment with "just don't say anything controversial". We could replace the right to privacy with "just don't have anything you want to hide". It's important to define our rights and freedoms. The question of whether we want customers to be able to compell speech is an important one.
  - jakelazaroff 5y ago
    Another important question is whether we want businesses to be able to discriminate against people. Again, my suggestion — wherein she can’t make wedding websites for anyone — doesn’t compel speech. But if I had to abandon practicality, I would say she should be forced to make the website.
    - nathanaldensr 5y ago
      Let's say I make a Christian dating website. In its sign-up terms it asks one to certify that one is indeed a Christian before joining. According to you, I should not even be allowed to create this website because it discriminates Christians from non-Christians. If I don't discriminate, then the website has no reason to exist as its entire purpose was to bring Christian singles together. Congratulations, you have successfully disenfranchised an entire group of religious people that simply want to meet others like them. Now change things around and pretend the dating website was for LGBTQ+ people. Do you see how you cannot possibly implement your proposal in a non-discriminatory way? Freedom of association is a thing because humans want to associate with like humans. This has been the case for all of human history. That doesn't automatically ascribe evil intent to anyone--whether a Christian on my hypothetical Christian dating website or an LGBTQ+ person on an LGBTQ+ dating website. Each group simply wants to associate with one another. The beautiful thing about the United States is that people have fifty states from which to choose. If you favor one type of association move to states that generally believe those things. If you favor another, move to those states. Having the federal government dictate that all states will favor associations only between certain approved groups is a recipe for discord.

jakelazaroff 5y ago

This is a First Amendment case, which means it’s specifically about jobs that count as “speech”. It’s very unambiguously illegal for a plumber or an accountant to have a “no gay clients” policy. That said — even within this case, that argument falls flat. The crux of the defense is “it’s not that I wouldn’t take on gay clients, I just won't make a wedding website for them.” Cool, so just don’t make wedding websites. There are plenty of other kinds of websites people will pay you to make. Leave the wedding sites to designers who won’t discriminate against gay people.

Xeoncross 5y ago
No, it doesn't work that way. No mater what kind of website (forum, web app, social network, wedding, etc..) she probably doesn't want to make a certain type of content. It is the same for any person. There is a topic for each of us that we want no part of 'supporting' even if we have no problem serving people who do support it. Making a website collecting donations for Trump. Making a website supporting Israel. Making a website for a pride parade. Making a website supporting/condemning Hong Kong/BLM/OWS movements. Doesn't mater what you put for X, everyone has limits on what they are comfortable supporting. That is a separate issue from who you provide service to.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dahfizz 5y ago
I think the legal system ought to prioritize principles over practicality. We could replace the first amendment with "just don't say anything controversial". We could replace the right to privacy with "just don't have anything you want to hide". It's important to define our rights and freedoms. The question of whether we want customers to be able to compell speech is an important one.
- jakelazaroff 5y ago
  Another important question is whether we want businesses to be able to discriminate against people. Again, my suggestion — wherein she can’t make wedding websites for anyone — doesn’t compel speech. But if I had to abandon practicality, I would say she should be forced to make the website.
  - nathanaldensr 5y ago
    Let's say I make a Christian dating website. In its sign-up terms it asks one to certify that one is indeed a Christian before joining. According to you, I should not even be allowed to create this website because it discriminates Christians from non-Christians. If I don't discriminate, then the website has no reason to exist as its entire purpose was to bring Christian singles together. Congratulations, you have successfully disenfranchised an entire group of religious people that simply want to meet others like them. Now change things around and pretend the dating website was for LGBTQ+ people. Do you see how you cannot possibly implement your proposal in a non-discriminatory way? Freedom of association is a thing because humans want to associate with like humans. This has been the case for all of human history. That doesn't automatically ascribe evil intent to anyone--whether a Christian on my hypothetical Christian dating website or an LGBTQ+ person on an LGBTQ+ dating website. Each group simply wants to associate with one another. The beautiful thing about the United States is that people have fifty states from which to choose. If you favor one type of association move to states that generally believe those things. If you favor another, move to those states. Having the federal government dictate that all states will favor associations only between certain approved groups is a recipe for discord.